Saints and Psychopaths (Overview, Notes, Comments). Part 2

Saints and Psychopaths (Overview, Notes, Comments). Part 2

The following is Part 2 of my overview, notes, and comments that I decided to write as I was reading the book Saints and Psychopaths by William L. Hamilton (published in 1995 by Dharma Audio Network Associates in San Jacinto, Calif). Fortunately, this rare book is available on Scribd, where you can download it for free.

Part 1 of the overview is available here.

Notes and Comments on Chapter 1 (“Psychopaths”)

The book is divided into two parts. Part 1 is entitled “Psychopaths,” Part 2 is entitled “Saints.” The first chapter of the first part bears the title “Psychopaths,” too.

Chapter 1 starts with a story about Ram Dass. His spiritual teacher Neem Karoli Baba Maharajji passed away, and Ram Dass, who didn’t consider himself to be enlightened, was looking for a “suitable teacher.” During this search Ram Dass became associated with a woman teacher to whom he was introduced by Hilda Charlton, “an eclectic spiritual teacher in New York City.” At first, this woman impressed Ram Dass by her ability to go into a deep trance (samadhi) and that she seemed to be capable to “channel” his teacher Majarajji. Even though Ram Dass had ambivalent feelings towards her (on the one hand, he was impressed by her seemingly “metanormal capacities,” if I am to use Michael Murphy’s term; on the other hand, he “felt repelled by her excessive makeup, jewelry and vile language”).

Ram Dass has been involved with this teacher for two years; due to his own popularity many people decided to attend this woman’s classes, too. Then the understanding about the ambiguous nature of this “teacher” emerged, and “Ram Dass wrote an expose of his two year involvement with this teacher. His description of the complicated web of lies, deception, sexual misconduct and drug use by his teacher portrays a classic example of a psychopath pretending to be a saint.” Complicated web of lies, deception, sexual misconduct, and drug use—these seem to be a part of the spiritual psychopath’s most frequent behavioral patterns.

W. L. Hamilton then provides a brief introduction into what he means by speaking about the existence of psychopaths who are ready to get a person in their webs: “Psychopaths pretending to be saints present a very serious problem for all spiritual traditions. There are many more psychopaths pretending to be saints than there are real saints. If you have a true saint for a teacher, then you have a real possibility for spiritual attainments, including enlightenment. If your teacher is a psychopath, then you may become a programmed puppet, and you risk being sexually or financially abused. You also may lose your job, your family and possibly even your sanity. Eventually you risk disillusionment in the pursuit of any spiritual quests.”

The author explains his perspective on what a “saint” is (basically, a person who underwent a process of spiritual training consisting of “study, discipline, prayer, or meditation” and attained a “purification of mind”). Better descriptions of what are the common characteristics of different states-stages of spiritual realization (in traditions of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu mysticism) are given in, e.g., Ken Wilber’s invaluable book Integral Spirituality (2006) as well as other works, so I will not stop here on Hamilton’s simplistic interpretation.

However, the author’s perspective on psychopaths is worth quoting, even though it is not a perfect and up-to-date insight into psychopathology: “A psychopath is someone who is morally defective and does not respect the values of property, truth and proper consideration for the effect of actions on self and others. Generally mental health professionals do not regard psychopaths as mentally ill because they do not manifest obvious dysfunctional behavior, but they appear to be rational. Most professionals prefer the terms sociopaths, borderline personalities, or antisocials.” Here I would comment that there are many schools of psychopathology (hence, many views of psychopathy); and the differences in the views can be also culturally-bound (for instance, the Soviet/Russian tradition of psychiatry may differ from the Western approaches in the way it describes “psychopathy”—while in the West specialists tend to speak about different personality disorders and borderline psychopathologies).

Hamilton also makes a note with which I totally agree: “[M]y direct personal experience with psychopaths has reinforced the view that psychopaths are indeed mentally ill, even if the signs are not immediately obvious.” This point must be emphasized: even though in a phenomenological situation of direct interaction a psychopath might look “normal,” especially for a layperson, if one is to look at and carefully analyze the overall track record of the psychopath’s intentional, behavioral, and sociocultural manifestation, as soon as a comprehensive picture of this person emerges, he or she might be shocked.

Hamilton received a degree in psychology in 1959; and he describes an old-fashioned (but still quite relevant) view of the origins of psychopathy for a typical American psychopath. “The origins of psychopathy occur in early childhood when prolonged periods of feeling the unbearable pain of being unloved are experienced. Actually psychopaths may have been loved, but their parents' problems with marriage, career, health, drinking, drugs, travel, etc. may have kept them from adequately expressing it. When the child had problems, he or she felt that there 'was no one to whom to turn for support, guidance and love. Most children who have this type of experience simply become neurotic, but others experience a more sinister development: As the stress builds, they feel that everyone and everything is the source of their suffering. They reach a breaking point and make a conscious decision to get even with the world. From that point on they feel that any harm they cause others is justified revenge. They become juvenile delinquents, and by the time they become young adults their pattern of behavior becomes so deeply rooted that they are virtually incurable.”

Hamilton goes on describing the two general types of psychopaths with which, again, I couldn’t agree more. “One type is overtly violent, and most of them quickly end up in prison for murder or a series of violent crimes. The other is a covert type that is actually much more dangerous and can cause both violent and nonviolent suffering to large numbers of people. There are no limits to the amount of damage a psychopath can do. Hitler, Stalin, and Saddham Hussein are examples of psychopaths who did great damage when they seized political control.”

The author points out that there’s a gradation of psychopathy’s severity (this seems to be a balanced view; however, it is useful to add here that in the Russian psychiatric tradition the general feature of psychopathy’s is that it permeates each and every aspect of individual’s personality and self-sense): “You should understand that being a psychopath is not a black or white situation, but is measured on a gradient scale, and we all have some element of a psychopath in our personality. It is only when this characteristic is strong enough to dominate the personality that the label psychopath should be used. Even when this occurs some people are only slightly psychopathic and others are very psychopathic.”

This is a great point, at least heuristically, because we’re often afraid to look straight in the face of a psychopath and recognize him or her as such, for it would mean meeting with our own shadow (some little dysfunctional part of ourselves that can be revealed if we actually uncover a psychopathic personality in another person). Why is that so? I believe that, as human beings, in order to make an authentic judgment about another person (such as recognizing his or her psychopathy) we have to relate to him or her empathically, that is letting him or her into our own consciousness. But if we spent all our lives trying to hide something nasty from our own awareness we must’ve learned how to block our own capacity for sophisticated empathy. Also, we often tend to confuse empathy with sympathy, and often our sympathies are unjustified.

Hamilton describes the difference between very psychopathic persons who tend to be completely unadjusted to society, even if they’re a covert type, and slightly to moderately psychopathic persons. Very psychopathic persons “either end up in prison, or are  constantly on the move from place to place. They rarely acquire an advanced education, establish themselves in a career, or become recognized as useful persons in society.” In contrast to them, slightly to moderately psychopathic persons “can become established in a community, and covert psychopaths can have extraordinarily attractive and charismatic personalities.” In Russia and different parts of the world, I either personally encountered or distantly observed individuals who strikingly acted as psychopaths and worked as school and university teachers, owners of large businesses, politicians, army officers, police men (not to mention delinquent criminals), and so on.

According to Hamilton, “The entertainment business and advertising seem to attract a disproportionately large number of psychopaths perhaps because both professions involve creating illusions. They may be doctors, perhaps with fake degrees, who frequently are charged with malpractice. They may be lawyers who become deeply, involved with criminals and scam artists. They may be politicians who take bribes and abuse the powers of office. They may be psychotherapists who seduce or enslave their clients. They may be business people who sell shoddy merchandise, inflate repairs and do not honor guarantees. They may be religious leaders pretending to be saints.” This is not a rare thing at all, although, of course, not everyone who takes bribes or seems cruel is a psychopath, and finer distinctions ought to be made. In the contemporary psychiatric literature on differential diagnostics it’s mentioned that even a professional in the mental health field could be quite inept at diagnosing a covert psychopath.

After writing about that Hamilton proceeds with what forms the main theme of his book. He writes about distinguishing saints from psychopaths. “Distinguishing a saint from a psychopath presents a unique problem because they have some common characteristics that seem at first to be identical. Both saints and psychopaths can have the appearance of a beautiful, radiant and attractive being. Both may tell you, ‘Be here now, forget the past, forget the future; be spontaneous, heed your inner voice, follow your bliss.’ Both may advise you to not be bound by traditional social values but by higher spiritual values. Both may have messages from God or spiritual teachings tailored just for you. Both may be homeless wanderers. Both may manifest fearless behavior and may risk persecution. Saints and psychopaths can be intuitively perceptive of people's mood changes, new developments, and new understandings. They may appear to manifest similar psychic powers, healing, mind reading, and channeling from other realms.” (That is, they seem to have a gift at entering altered states of consciousness and invoking those in others.)

Now, Hamilton provides an important note on the difference between a saint and a psychopath, the note that requires one to genealogically analyze the origins of an individual’s current personality. “Although the powers of a saint and a psychopath may seem the same at first, they have different roots. Saints have a calm, clear, empowered state of mind as a result of discipline, meditation, and introspection. Psychopaths can develop paranoid samadhi, which is a concentrated mind, because they have done so many unskillful things such as lying, theft, injury, adultery, substance abuse, etc. Their powers come from having to have a very sensitive awareness to perceive when someone is coming after them. They are also gluttons for attention, and when they have your attention they will start to feed on your spiritual energies like a psychic vampire. They can sometimes read minds, tell the future, do healings, see things which aren’t physically apparent and you may become mesmerized and convinced of their divine power.”

So what recommendation the author gives in regard to how we can tell saints from psychopaths? Hamilton’s initial perspective is as follows: “So how do we tell saints from psychopaths? My teacher, Sayadaw U Pandita, says that he never makes up his mind about peoples enlightenment until he has known them and observed them closely for a year. It is in the nature of saints to respond to sincere requests for help, and guidance. If you sincerely want help they will be there for you. They may ask you to make commitments once you are training under their guidance, but there is unlikely to be an initial urgent commitment. Psychopaths, on the other hand, are more likely to come on to you with an initial urgency, demanding that you make a commitment immediately or lose your opportunity. Therefore, my first advice about telling saints from psychopaths is to take your time.”

Of course, this is a simplistic but nevertheless good advice; and I would note that Hamilton uses the word “saints” in a very generic fashion. We could (and need) develop more complex frameworks for evaluation, especially if we speak about how to distinguish (I’m going to use Ken Wilber’s terminology) healthy “shamans/yogis,” “saints,” “sages,” and—quite a difficult case!—“siddhas” from their pathological variations.

Hamilton mentions the following qualities of saints and psychopaths in terms of their moral development:

• — “Saints have such a deeply rooted morality from their own direct understanding that by normal social standards they may be amoral. The Buddha clashed with his culture by disparaging rites and rituals and not respecting caste. Christ, too, conflicted with his culture.”
• — “Psychopaths, on the other hand, are simply immoral. Their divergence from social standards involves self gratification and disregard for doing harm.”
  

The author explains that in his own experience the formula “SAY, MEAN, DO” proved to be useful, if one takes time to evaluate and doesn’t entrust himself or herself to the individual immediately:

• — “Saints will say what they mean and will do what they say.”
• — “Psychopaths will mean something other than what they say and what they do may have little relationship to what they say and mean. For example, psychopaths may say they love you or want to help you, when what they mean is that they want attention or money. What they do in the long run is going to be a disappointment.”
  

This is a very important point. From my own observations, the best way to spot a psychopath is to carefully witness & analyze his or her track record, be it in terms of relational situations with you or others. It seems that psychopaths are so injured and they spend so much energy to hold their borderline defenses that they often tend not to be able to sustain a good track record over a prolonged period of time. Psychopaths run in circles and cycles, and I met individuals whose psychopathic cycle seemed to range from a few months to a year (for instance, they would summon certain occasions and people in their life, play with them, then, after a year, throw them away from the social circle as if they were toys). Also, there seem to be macro-cycles and micro-cycles that would form complex self-organizing systems of social interactions around these psychopathic people.

Hamilton points out a strange feature of psychopaths: they’re “constantly planting the seeds of their own destruction”: “When new psychopaths arrive on the scene, they or their co-psychopathic entourage will tell you many stories of how successful and well respected they were at their previous locations.  However, in time they or other people will begin to tell stories of great conflict and discord at their previous places. Listen carefully to these stories and you will hear that they were at the center of these problems.”

Once I started to work at launching several projects with a man who, as the time of our relationship passed, made sure to tell me about a series of clashes and conflicts in which he broke relationships with this or that individual in a very nasty manner. All the conflicts repeated the same pattern (the individual was pushed out and blamed a “scape goat,” and the man claimed to maintain a good self-image—in fact, he did his best to convince others, including me, in that he mustn’t be “blamed”).  Eventually, as my awareness that he acted repeating the same rigid behavioral repertoire of a psychopath over and over again increased, he did his best to push me out.

Another trait of psychopaths, according to Hamilton, is that they tend to make “Big Lies” over and over again. If speaking about the market of spirituality, we “should be very suspicious when someone claims that 98% of cancers were cured, or 99% of the marriages they arranged were successful, or 100% of their students become enlightened.” Lying plays a big role in psychopaths’ lives. “Psychopaths thrive on not having to verify what they say.” I would add that often psychopaths leave promissory notes claiming, for instance, that they’re going to do something but then as the time passes by you realize that they keep giving promises but never doing as they said.

One of the most important feature of psychopaths as I encountered and as Hamilton describes is their skillful ability to “evade blame when they are confronted with having done something wrong.” Now, this is worth quoting extensively: “Since they lack a true sense of guilt, they do not respond the way you may expect a guilty person to behave. Psychopaths have a very distinctive sequence of responses to dealing with confrontations. If one method of stopping a confrontation does not work, they will change strategies.” When confronted with wrong-doing, a psychopath, according to Hamilton, will respond in this sequence:

1. Ignore the issue.
2. Deny that they have done something wrong.
3. Attack the accuser, usually accusing the accuser or being the one who has done wrong.
4. Threaten to harm the accuser, someone else, something, or self.
5. Apologize and admit that they have done wrong, then ask for a clean slate or new start.

It is fascinating that, for instance, the same person I mentioned above actually demonstrated at least four out of the five patterns. A few weeks after our relationship was over he would attempt to call me up by phone and send text messages with vague apologies and proposals for a new start. I was amazed to witness how most people would naively think that’s sincere and re-launch the psychopathic cycle of that individual, the cycle that would end all the same.

Saints, however, tend to show the following patterns:

1. Acknowledge errors and misunderstandings
2. Admit that they have made an error
3. Apologize
4. Offer compensation or correction
5. Avoid that type of error in the future
   

In my observations, psychopaths tend to exploit natural human tendency to self-doubt and feel guilty. They will often exploit your self-doubt and guilt without remorse and conscience. Your tragedy is a funny game for them. “Anything you do wrong becomes a lever for manipulating you. This is particularly true if you break, or threaten to break a promise, even though they usually have poor records in keeping promises.”

Hamilton emphasizes one interesting pattern of a psychopath. If cornered, the psychopath would suddenly overdo apologizing promising they’re healed and “it’s never going to be the same again”: “[W]hen psychopaths are finally forced to apologize they will outdo the saints. Their previous belligerent attitudes will vanish. They will apologize profusely and confess the error of their ways in great detail. They may even list wrongdoings that you were unaware of, to impress you with the depth of their change. Their transformation seems quite impressive and even professionals who should know better are sometimes taken in by their pretense. Judges have suspended sentences of repeat bigamists and outrageous con artists who swore to devote the rest of their lives to making restitution.”

The author beautifully describes what psychopaths tend to do in this kind of situation: “‘Give me a clean slate,’ is the refrain of psychopaths. They will proclaim that they are a new person or that they have been born again. Sometimes they insist that they should not be punished because the person who did those things no longer exists. Indeed they may make drastic changes in their behavior, from being rude and domineering to being humble and submissive. It is, however, all a ruse to get off the hook. For awhile after being caught psychopaths may go through a quiescent period, but in time the same old patterns of behavior will reoccur. They are not bound by conscience or true remorse. As soon as you walk out the door they may revert to their old ways without skipping a beat.”

Generally speaking, as Hamilton notes, psychopathic behavior is both self-destructive and destructive to those around them. In fact, I would say that it seems psychopaths perceive those around them as toys for play rather than autonomous human beings. “Sooner or later things are going to turn out bad. Having a psychopath around is like having a pet rattlesnake running loose in your house. When you determine that someone is psychopathic, you should make an immediate clean break with them.”

The trait of being self-destructive reveals itself in a very curious way: if you threat a psychopath with destruction (for instance, if you say “If you continue doing this, you will get to jail”) it would only increase their motivation. Psychopaths can’t stand any “imposed” limits and boundaries. They would consider a threat (such as the one I just mentioned) an attempt of the environment to restrict them; and they will act exactly the way they were warned against to prove they can get away with it. They do get away until they get in jail or die (sometimes taking lives of others, too).

Craving for attention is another pattern that psychopaths tend to demonstrate in their behavior. “As a result of not having received love and attention as a child, psychopaths have an almost unlimited need for attention. One of the signs of a psychopath is that wherever they go they tend to become the center of attention. It doesn't matter to them whether they do something good or bad as long as they get attention. They can be benefactors as easily as they can be dangerous and may steal things to give to someone else.” I know a person who often interrupts any conversation and attempts to re-focus people’s attention on himself by any means, even by speaking things that are not quite on topic. It can be an illustration of this craving for attention.

If you got to know a psychopath very closely, Hamilton says, you would notice another striking behavior that they demonstrate—anxiety attacks and paranoia. The author puts it beautifully: “There is one sign of a psychopath that usually only a close associate will have an opportunity to see. From time to time a psychopath will have anxiety attacks. They hide alone, or with someone totally under—their control, when they become panicked about their health, fear of being arrested, assassinated, or attacked by devils, spirits, etc. Sometimes anxiety attacks last days or weeks, or sometimes only brief moments, especially if they get their co-psychopath motivated to do something for them as a result.” This is very true.

Hamilton writes that many organizations (especially, spiritual organizations) that suffered from psychopaths in the past “tend to make rules of various types as a result of their encounters with psychopaths.” However, the psychopaths “will simply break the rule if they can get away with it, or do something else which is equally bad but not against the rules.” The author advices to “develop an awareness of psychopaths and establish a system for getting rid of them.” He goes on describing the group dynamics of what reactions and responses the appearance of a psychopath in a community evokes.

The author remarks, “Psychopaths are dangerous even in legitimate organizations with honest leadership. If a psychopath comes on 'the scene bad things are bound to happen. Businesses become inoperable, teams become disorganized, families break up. Psychopaths are likely to be trouble makers, embezzlers, drug dealers, or get the organization involved with illegal dealings. The morale of the organization is likely to deteriorate, and the staff is likely to become divided into warring camps.”

Having said that, Hamilton argues that Buddhism “has fewer psychopaths than other major religious traditions.” I will skip that part because it is simply not true. I met quite a few very dubious individuals associated with Buddhism, too.

Closer to the end of the first chapter Hamilton explains the psychology of so-called “co-psychopaths.” Co-psychopaths are “close associates of psychopaths who are caught up in their web of control and deception. They may be a spouses, partners or disciples.” He explains, however, that these people usually are not morally defective, what happened is that they “the artificial reality that the psychopaths have created, and they believe that the psychopaths' behavior is acceptable because of their divinity, illness, abused childhood, enlightenment, etc.” Psychopaths use them and program to follow very questionable paths, lie, cheat, steal, and even murder. My own experience supports seeing this as a very important perspective: I have found that it is sometimes a matter of life and death for a psychopath to persuade you in their “model of reality” by all means. Once you accepted their prerational map (or the way to perceive the world), even though such maps can be quite deranged, infantile, paranoiac, and black & white, you’ve made a step into becoming one of the puppets of a psychopath. The motif for obtaining co-psychopaths for a psychopath is usually irrational (as for most other psychopathic actions—even though a psychopath may provide manifold rationalizations of one’s behavior, “explaining” “why” he or she did this or that), and he or she would compulsively do it to anyone who demonstrates weakness and proneness to their psychopathic persuasion.

Hamilton notes that the common reason for co-psychopaths to finally break away from their psychopath lies in ”the disparity between their own inner sense of morality and the rationalized, programmed morality of the psychopath.” It is not rare that self-destructive tendencies of psychopaths “will lead them to overplay their hand and cause their co-psychopaths to break away.” An important thing about co-psychopaths is that they have tendency to return to their psychopath. I would add that they may repeat the same mistake of returning to their relationship with the psychopath until they finally heal themselves and learn their lesson. Often it never happens; and we’re surprised to witness pathological relationships that span for a few decades (as in the cases of family abuse).

According to the author, it can happen that a psychopath would infiltrate an organization (business-oriented, spiritually-oriented, and so on) and succeed “in getting a manager or teacher into a co-psychopathic role.” I have reasons to believe that many of us have witnessed quite strange situations and networks of relationships emerging around spiritual teachers (when, for example, they get intimately involved with very dubious people). The notion of multiple intelligences or multiple lines of development is helpful here: even though a spiritual teacher can be highly evolved in terms of spiritual intelligence, his or her emotional or interpersonal intelligence (or some other intelligence) can be very weak. A spiritual teacher is a human being; and all human beings grow up in their families, and in many families there can be instances of emotionally abusive upbringing and improper child care.

One common example I witnessed is inability of some spiritual teachers to handle the question of money and finances, so they would handle this issue to a third person and won’t even look at it. If a spiritual teacher’s financial survival depends on that person and if that person is a psychopath, the spiritual teacher can be very prone to manipulations.

Hamilton writes his perspective on the signs that a teacher might have become a co-psychopath: “There are some signs to watch for when a legitimate spiritual teacher becomes involved with a psychopathic partner: Teachers will have much less time to devote to their teaching. There will be a greater emphasis on the teachers making money either directly or indirectly as a result of their teaching. The teacher may leave to start a new organization, or many key people will leave. A new emphasis or activity will develop in the teachings. The teacher may get involved with some immoral or illegal activity. These signs do not mean a teacher has become immoral per se, but it is an indication of the power of their partner to create a web of commitments and distort reality.”

How can a co-psychopath be helped? The author points out that the reason why co-psychopaths became co-psychopaths in first place is deeply rooted in the history of their psychological development. Unless these deep roots are healed there is always “a possibility that they may return to the control and influence of the psychopath.” Hamilton emphasizes that this is “a pattern of behavior similar to that of co-alcoholics and abused spouses. Even when co-psychopaths are successful in breaking away, there are prolonged periods during which they gradually realize the extent of the artificial reality that they adopted. Some never figure out what happened, other than realizing that the relationship was unwholesome for them. Co-psychopaths may need psychotherapy and support groups to overcome the inner conflicts they experience. Their chances for recovery are very good.” The author advises such people to seek relationships with others that have had similar experience (such as former members of religious cults).

Hamilton writes that usually the one who extricated oneself from a social system dominated by a psychopath will have a strong desire to get his or her friends out of it too. However, “[u]nless your friends in the group are expressing some doubts or reservations, it is usually fruitless to trying to talk them into leaving. Co-psychopaths are too caught up in the artificial reality of the psychopath to hear your advice. If you try too hard to convince them, you will succeed only in breaking off communication.” This is very true and can be confirmed with my own experience: most people involved in such a social system (which can actually be quite multilevel and multifaceted) are extremely “skilled” at avoiding seeing the multiple facts of psychopaths’ crimes. When talking to such individuals and explaining your perspective, you must apply carefully developed skillful means. Hamilton’s point is that the best strategy for a friend is “to wait until [the ones who’re under the influence of a psychopath] show signs of doubt and give them understanding support at the right time.”

Hamilton recommends to look within and to figure out to what extent the lower motivations and desires influence your spiritual quest. He warns, “To the extent that your seeking is motivated by desires for power, prestige, sex, sense desires, etc., you are vulnerable to being seduced by a psychopath. To the extent that you are motivated to become enlightened or to purify your mind of defilements, then you are on safe ground.” This is true: a spiritual psychopath, especially the one who is trained in states of consciousness and manipulation techniques (such as hypnosis, subtle energies work, and so on), will do everything he or she can to destroy any safe psychological ground you have to enforce his or her influence.

If you encountered an especially advanced psychopathic spiritual manipulator and went into a deep relationship with him or her, the only surest way for you would be to simultaneously realize the Ground of Being (thus letting go your attachments to impermanent) and at the same time construct an integral framework of ethics and world action to which you commit yourself. This would be the Ground which no psychopath in the world would be able to destroy; and from this connection to the Source you would actually be able to embrace everyone with compassion and at the same time discriminating wisdom.

In the concluding remarks for Chapter 1 of Saints and Psychopaths the author accentuates “one of the most tragic aspects of psychopaths”—the absence of authentic desire to change. This is important: psychopathies are egosyntonic pathologies—that is, the very self-sense of the person is attached to the pathological framework. What they are is literally the structure and experiential network of their pathology. Hamilton puts it this way, “Psychopaths are rarely responsive to psychotherapy. They are difficult to cure because they don't want to be cured. On rare occasions, they come to reflect on their lives during a mid-life crisis and may truly desire to change. Even then, it may take extensive psychotherapy with expensive specialists to induce a true transformation of behavior.” Hamilton explains that the rare occasions of healing “occur only when they come to the desire to change on their own, and not when they have been caught and are only pretending to want to change.” I must say that such a course of events usually is unlikely to happen, at least within today’s psychotherapy.

This is what leads Hamilton to advising not to try “to reform or cure psychopaths.” I think that if you’re not a professional psychologist (and even if you consider yourself a professional psychologist), it is your duty to carefully assess the best of your basic moral intuition, take care of yourself and put your talents towards helping people who are going to bring a greater good to society. Any game with a psychopath is virtually a game of life and death. The moment you lose clarity of awareness due to any reason a psychopath would make sure to eat you alive, automatically exploiting every insecurity you exhibit on many levels (mostly, prepersonal).

Since psychopaths’ pathological self-systems are so embedded with their psychopathic traumatic experience you’d have to virtually go all the way down and all the way up with them, deconstructing their pathological framework, reprogramming them (in a way which is similar to the way they are going to do their best to reprogram you) and systemically inserting experiential clusters of sanity. This would literally mean the psychological death for this person (and, to a great extent, for you, too); and at some point he or she might even beg you to stop. At the moments like this you will confront the darkest corners of your self-sense—and you mustn’t stop and exhibit “idiotic compassion,” although you would be tempted to choose an easy road over and over again. I saw skillful psychotherapists who would know psychopaths for many years, nevertheless, unknowingly becoming objectified toys for the psychopathic personality’s interior design and social manipulations. Ponder that if you want to reform or cure a psychopath. And then ponder that again.

Hamilton dedicates the final words to explaining that being a psychopath or being a saint, if put in my words, is largely a probabilistic mathematics. All of us have potential access to experiential realities of both a psychopath and a saint; and the point is to observe the track record and see whether the overall trajectory of the individual’s behavior is predominated by psychopathic traits or by saintly traits. The author advises, “When we encounter some extraordinarily impressive personality, we would be wise to ask ourselves if this is the personality of a psychopath.” He provides a checklist for Saints and Psychopaths worth presenting below.

Checklist for Saints and Psychopaths

   

Saints SAY MEAN DO consistency Adhere to own moral standards Pay debts Keep promises Truth is highest standard Insists close associates tell the truth Un-aggressive philosophy Attractive but not drawing Waits for you to seek help Good reputation endures & improves Projects & organization grow & improve In the long run things turn out well People have long term benefit from association Have concern for effect of actions on self and others Will immediately apologize for errors Look for their own mistakes & will apologize If trapped will not renounce principles Typically have good health Typically have few accidents & injuries Felt loved when a child Can sit very still Encourage associates to be self reliant Refrains from using mind-dulling substances Are comfortable being in the background May adopt a spiritual name one time

Psychopaths SAY MEAN DO disparity Breaks own rules Many bad debts, writes bad checks Break promises No true regard for truth Tell close associates to lie Push philosophy aggressively Attractive and drawing Comes on with unsolicited advice Good reputation fades in time Projects & organization degenerate In the long run things turn out badly People are damaged by long term association Are unconcerned for effect of actions on self and others Apologize as last resort Ignore their own mistakes and apologizes only if cornered If trapped will do or say anything to escape Typically have variable exotic health problems Typically have many accidents and injuries Felt unloved when a child Can sit still only when center of attention Enslave people around them Substance abuse common Compulsion to become the center of attention Adopt many aliases

Hamilton’s note: “Any one psychopath or saint is unlikely to have all of the characteristics listed. Just because someone has some of these characteristics does not mean he or she is a psychopath or saint.”

The last part in the series is Conclusion.